Gun Control Isn't Crime Control

Gun Control Isn't Crime Control
Stricter Gun Control Laws Wouldn't Have Prevented Va. Tech Tragedy
OPINION by JOHN STOSSEL
April 26, 2007—


This past Tuesday the governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people -- and himself -- on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it's a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It's true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn't adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves -- just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill's failure with chilling accuracy: "You never know when evil will pop up."

Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school's campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Are Concealed Pistol owners safer than the general populace? I did the checking for my own state. These numbers are available for verification from my home state of Michigan in an annual report by the Michigan State Police http://michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.html

Please feel free to double check my numbers.

The dates run from July 1 of the previous year to June 30 of the year noted.

2002:
Permits Issued: 53,000
Permits Revoked: 55
2003:
Permits Issued: 27,499
Permits Revoked: 52
2004:
Permits Issued: 31,121
Permits Revoked: 119
2005:
Permits Issued: 54,677
Permits Revoked: 121
2006:
Permits Issued: 36,754
Permits Revoked: 108

Total:
Issued 203,051
Revoked 455
Murders/Homicide during this time by CPL holders: 4

This means that 1/5 of one percent have their CPL revoked (0.22%).
They have a murder rate of 1.97/100,000 population.
The national average is 5.6/100,000 population and the Michigan average of 6.4/100,000.

Michigan CPL holders are 2.8 times less likely to commit murder/homicide than the national average and 3.2 times less likely to commit murder/homicide than the Michigan average. 0.22% have their license revoked showing that they follow the rules and laws set out for them.

Where is the evil that these guns and licenses are to provoke? Where is the blood in the streets? With 203,051 licensed civilians carrying firearms, why aren't we having old west shootouts in the streets every day?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the training, background check, and education the CPL holders have to experience means that it is most good, upstanding citizens that have these licenses. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is the character of the individual and not the presence of a weapon that decide if a crime will occur
.

First Note

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

”

The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

”

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.

The above from Wikipedia (I hate quoting Wiki, but it served the purpose)
I have been reading about the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Being a geek, I want to know as much as possible to be able to validate or change the things I have considered. The language of the 2nd amendment has made it open to interpretation. The question becomes "does the 2nd amendment only apply to militia members?

In my research, I found a great interpretation at the "Second Amendment Sisters" website. http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that the rights of the individuals that are safeguarded by the Bill of Rights are assumed to have always been present. They were, and are, there and granted by the Creator and not by the Bill of Rights itself.

This brings me to my concerns about the current gun debates. It seems that those that want to prevent firearms from being in civilian hands have forgotten that the same people that founded this country were they ones that fought to overthrow it's previous ruler. They did this because they had the right to have the weapons required to do this usurping of authority. They had the same equipment as the governing military. Without this, we would have remained under the the oppression of British rule.

Any discussion of the 2nd Amendment would be fundamentally flawed if the Declaration of Independence was not included. Of the 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence, 6 also signed the Constitution. This austire group of 56 also produced several Presidents of the United States, Presidents of the Continental Congress, and other that built the foundation of freedom upon which we have built.

As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, on September 18, 1787, a certain Mrs. Powel shouted out to him: “Well, doctor, what have we got?,” and Franklin responded: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” We need to stand up for Franklin, Washington, Hancock, and the other men who stood up and shouted "No more!" We the People must fight to keep this Republic and to preserve our unailable rights, granted to us by our Creator. We must be stalwart and stand for truth and original intent.